Watching the English

How could I be suggesting that the Brits are outspoken when the anglo-EU translation guide so clearly suggested differently? And when a new paper I had just come across argued that the very construction of the English language encourages the “hinting” habit which the guide exemplifies?

On a scale with “hinting” at one end and “direct” at the other, we can place different national conversational styles.

Hinting people often prefer not to say exactly what they mean because they’re concerned with the effect their ideas might have on those they’re talking to. Instead of coming straight to the point (“I don’t think this will work” or “I want to conclude the meeting at 4 o’clock sharp”) hinting people prefer to hint at what they’re trying to say, hoping that the other person will understand without them having to be explicit.

The British art of “Politeness” is a classic form of indirectness. We have conventions of politeness that try to make the other person comfortable by not imposing, by giving them a way out, by being friendly etc. Other cultures have more direct styles and value the directness of saying what you mean, (even quite brutally), assuming the other person will appreciate their “honest” approach.

Since the British are at the “hinting” end of the scale we can find other more direct conversational styles aggressive, rude, or even obtuse. People from more direct cultures may find the British wishy-washy, inconsistent or even misleading. Hinters can come across as unclear and indecisive, whereas Direct people can come across as pushy, rude or insensitive.

An yet everyone recognizes the adversarial nature of the English political culture – nowhere more evident than in the confrontational layout of the House of Commons debating chamber, compared with the semi-circle of the French and German chambers. And continental regimes have a long tradition of coalitions and consensual government which is almost entirely absent from the British. In that respect, however, France is closer to Britain and the French legal system is, of course, notoriously confrontational.

The same article does, however, offer an explanation for the apparent contradiction between politeness and stubbornness

No matter how “traditional” the British may appear, they are in fact fierce individualists which might surprise foreigners ….Whereas the Brits have very formal and traditional rules of conduct and etiquette that apply to the first “impersonal” stages of a relationship or more particularly to the opening stages of a negotiation, once a more informal atmosphere has been established, there are no strict rules of conduct. As a French Business Manager put it, “in France we are less formal than the Brits at the start of a relationship, but over time, we don’t tend to become as informal as the British will”.

Individualism, however. may become downright stubbornness. Because we do not feel pressured to conform to a general consensus, a Brit will have no trouble saying “No” to any point which other European negotiators argue is for the “common good”. Insularity and the Island Mentality contribute to our willingness to fight point by point to the last. Our European partners may see this as a tough approach in multi party, multi cultural negotiations. Equally we can be seen to be playing the role of the devil’s advocate. Of course, the disadvantage of this “semi-detached” attitude is that we are often underachieve in longer-term joint venture projects. A perfect example of this is the high-speed rail link between the channel tunnel and London.

I recently came across a paper called Cultures of negotiation which suggested three explanatory factors for the embarrassing mess the UK has made of the Brexit negotiations
-       the adversarial political culture which I’ve just referred to
-       the Conservative “ideology of statecraft” which views the international system as a dangerous environment, is sceptical of notions of trust and cooperation, regards power as the fundamental currency of international politics, and accordingly regards the threat of force (or the application of other forms of power) as the best way to influence other actors
-       “weak socialisation into European structures” – a reference presumably to the reluctance particularly of English MPs and UKIP MEPs to get involved in European processes…

The first Part of Richard Lewis’s When Cultures Collide – leading across cultures  has a great diagram (figure 2.2 page 20) showing how this “withdrawal” syndrome works at a psychological level...
And the triangular diagram which graces this post is also taken from the early part of the book.....

I've taken the title of my post from Kate Fox's book of that name which you can access here. It’s actually a great read – although this review (called the awkward squad) doesn’t agree – finding it too flippant. This review – from a fellow anthropologist – gives it the respect I think it deserves